UK SORN... ;'(

Non-computer-related chit-chat

Moderators: ChrisThornett, LXF moderators

Postby ollie » Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:21 am

OK, sorry - by combined I meant that having the 3rd party insurance was a requirement of registration and stayed with the registered vehicle. The optional comprehensive insurance is also tied to a vehicle but can be transferred (usually with extra cost :wink: ) to a new vehicle when you sell the "old" one. The UK TV shows seem to explain the insurance being tied to the driver, so people drive a car they aren't insured to drive. :?

We just use the colours as an easy way to differentiate to between documentation required to complete the registration process. We also have a "blue slip" for vehicles that have been out of registration. For vehicles modified beyond "manufacturers specifications" you also need an engineers certificate.

I know we have unregistered and uninsured vehicles on the road but it doesn't seem to be the same problem as the UK.
User avatar
ollie
Moderator
 
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:26 am
Location: Bathurst NSW Australia

Postby nelz » Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:06 pm

Insurance can be linked to the driver, the vehicle or both, depending on your needs. The basic is one driver and one car, usually with cover for other drivers in "emergencies".

The trouble with insuring the vehicle is that it takes no account of who is to drive it, so the safe/lucky drivers subsidise the idiots.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8546
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Postby guy » Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:46 pm

nelz wrote:Insurance can be linked to the driver, the vehicle or both, depending on your needs. The basic is one driver and one car, usually with cover for other drivers in "emergencies".

I suppose a given policy may be linked only to a driver, but that would be unusual in the UK. But any given vehicle must have some kind of policy linked to it - you cannot obtain a license for it without the associated insurance cover note specifying said vehicle. Most private policies link to both vehicle and driver.

The trouble with insuring the vehicle is that it takes no account of who is to drive it, so the safe/lucky drivers subsidise the idiots.

Rather, it's the owner who subsidises the idiots. But then, since the owner is evidently prepared to let idiots drive it, that seems reasonable to me. Hello white van man.
"Klinger, do you know how many zoots were killed to make that one suit?" — BJ Hunnicutt
User avatar
guy
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Postby nelz » Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:07 pm

guy wrote:I suppose a given policy may be linked only to a driver, but that would be unusual in the UK. But any given vehicle must have some kind of policy linked to it - you cannot obtain a license for it without the associated insurance cover note specifying said vehicle.


When did that change? Admittedly, it's been many years since I held such a policy, but as long as the policy in my name covered the vehicle in my name, I was able to tax it, even if the policy said "any vehicle owned by the insured".


guy wrote:Rather, it's the owner who subsidises the idiots. But then, since the owner is evidently prepared to let idiots drive it, that seems reasonable to me.


If the insurance was tied to the registration, as in the post to which I replied, then the owner is paying for the possibility of idiots driving it, even if he has no intention of even allowing them to sit in it.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8546
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Postby guy » Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:02 pm

nelz wrote:
guy wrote:I suppose a given policy may be linked only to a driver, but that would be unusual in the UK. But any given vehicle must have some kind of policy linked to it - you cannot obtain a license for it without the associated insurance cover note specifying said vehicle.

When did that change?

What I mean is, you need a cover note whose terms cover said vehicle implicitly if not explicitly (such as a hire company's blanket policy).

guy wrote:Rather, it's the owner who subsidises the idiots. But then, since the owner is evidently prepared to let idiots drive it, that seems reasonable to me.

If the insurance was tied to the registration, as in the post to which I replied, then the owner is paying for the possibility of idiots driving it, even if he has no intention of even allowing them to sit in it.[/quote]
I did not tie the insurance to the registration but to the road tax and MOT. Those say nothing about who may drive the vehicle - the insurance policy reigns as supreme there as it does now. And nor did I say that the insurance fee would be a single national rate or cover a single set of circumstances - that's one reason the MOT centre needs to be an agency.
"Klinger, do you know how many zoots were killed to make that one suit?" — BJ Hunnicutt
User avatar
guy
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Postby nelz » Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:04 pm

I see, so much the same as now, except instead of getting your insurance from an annoying nodding dog or opera singer, you buy it from Arthur Daley :shock:

I'd rather stick with the "do one job and do it well" philosophy and buy my insurance from an insurance company and my MOT from a test centre. You could cut down on bureaucracy by having the test centre issue tax discs, but that would mean allowing blank discs out in the wild, I can't see that happening.

While some streamlining is always possible, the cost of implementing it will always outweigh any saving made when government departments are involved.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8546
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Postby guy » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:34 pm

nelz wrote:I see, so much the same as now, except instead of getting your insurance from an annoying nodding dog or opera singer, you buy it from Arthur Daley :shock:

If Arthur Daley is already approved to issue MOT certificates, why can't he sort out our cover notes as well?

I'd rather stick with the "do one job and do it well" philosophy and buy my insurance from an insurance company and my MOT from a test centre.

But then you probably prefer separate text processor, spell checker and page layout tools to LibreOffice Writer. Why do you use a monolithic kernel instead of HURD?

You could cut down on bureaucracy by having the test centre issue tax discs, but that would mean allowing blank discs out in the wild, I can't see that happening.

What, alongside those untamed blank MOT forms you mean? Almost as bad as stacking them up alongside ravaging books of postage stamps at my local Post Office.

While some streamlining is always possible, the cost of implementing it will always outweigh any saving made when government departments are involved.

Imagine the implementation costs we'd have saved is we'd stuck with stone tablets, bronze chisels and sacrificial sheep.
"Klinger, do you know how many zoots were killed to make that one suit?" — BJ Hunnicutt
User avatar
guy
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Postby nelz » Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:03 pm

Because it's bad enough that AD can issue test certificates?

Yes, I do prefer a text editor to LibreOffice. And I use a modular kernel, the Linux kernel isn't really monolithic, and hasn't been so for many years. It's some sort of hybrid now.

You don't display an MOT certificate, and it doesn't state that you have (or at least had) insurance.

Sticking with stone tablets would have saved all the bitching about Unity and Gnome 3 :P
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8546
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Postby Rhakios » Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:20 am

nelz wrote:Sticking with stone tablets would have saved all the bitching about Unity and Gnome 3 :P


Well, yes, we do have silicon-based ones now, iPad, webOS, Blackberry or Android?

;)
Bye, Rhakios
User avatar
Rhakios
Moderator
 
Posts: 7634
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: Midlands, UK

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests